King v Parsons - [2006] QCA 49

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

King v Parsons & Anor [2006] QCA 49

PARTIES:

DESMOND CHARLES KING
(applicant/appellant)
v
ELSA ALVINA PARSONS
(first respondent/first respondent)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
ACN 075 695 966
(second respondent/second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6746 of 2005
SC No 5038 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 February 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed1.

Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis2.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE - where appellant was injured in the course of his employment as a postal delivery officer employed by the Australian Postal Corporation - where second respondent has acknowledged liability for appellant's claim - where respondent's claim identified the contribution of his employment to the injury in respect of which he claims damages - whether the appellant's injury was an injury as defined under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) applied to the respondent's claim

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5(b)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6(2)(b)
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] QCA 48; CA No 7137 of 2005; 3 March 2006, cited

COUNSEL:

D O J North SC, with D C Rangiah, for the appellant
D V C McMeekin SC, with B J Hartigan, for the first respondent
W Sofronoff QC, with R I M Lilley, for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the appellant
Herbert Geer & Rundle for the first and second respondents

de JERSEY CJ: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA. I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

KEANE JA: On 20 July 2003, the appellant, Mr King, suffered an injury to his back in the course of his employment as a postal delivery officer employed by the Australian Postal Corporation ("the APC"). The APC is a "licensed corporation" under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the SRCA").

Mr King's claim against the respondents is that the injury was caused by the negligent driving of a motor vehicle by the first respondent. Mr King was driving his motorcycle while making mail deliveries along a footpath at Wootton Crescent, Springwood when the first respondent reversed her car from a driveway into the path of Mr King's motorcycle, forcing him to swerve and then drop the motorcycle to avoid colliding with a tree.

Mr King, in his claim form dated 12 September 2003, in answer to the question "Who caused the accident and why", he replied: "Elsa Parsons for failing…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading King v Parsons

Details

AGLC: King v Parsons [2006] QCA 49
Case: [2006] QCA 49
Decision Date: 3 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of King v Parsons, the appellant, King, was a postal delivery officer who sustained an injury during the course of his employment with the Australian Postal Corporation. King sought compensation for his injury under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The second respondent, Parsons, acknowledged liability for King's claim. However, the third respondent, who was Parsons' employer, argued that King's injury was not a result of his employment and therefore not covered by the Act. The dispute centred on whether King's injury was an injury as defined under the Act and whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) applied to Parsons' claim.

The court was required to determine the extent of King's employment-related injury and whether it qualified as an injury under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Additionally, the court had to consider whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) applied to Parsons' claim, potentially affecting the compensation available to King. The court had to balance the statutory provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) with the common law principles outlined in the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) to ascertain the rights and obligations of the parties involved.

The court found that King's injury was indeed an employment-related injury as defined under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The court held that the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) did not apply to Parsons' claim because it was not an independent tortfeasor but rather an employer vicariously liable for King's injury. The court concluded that King was entitled to compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), dismissing the appeal and ordering King to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

1 King v Parsons [2023] QDC 127 at [1].
2 King v Parsons [2023] QDC 127 at [3].

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed1.

Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	King v Parsons & Anor [2006] QCA 49
PARTIES:	DESMOND CHARLES KING (applicant/appellant) v ELSA ALVINA PARSONS (first respondent/first respondent) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED ACN 075 695 966 (second respondent/second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6746 of 2005 SC No 5038 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 February 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed1. Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis2.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION - EMPLOYMENT RELATED INJURY, DISABILITY OR DISEASE - where appellant was injured in the course of his employment as a postal delivery officer employed by the Australian Postal Corporation - where second respondent has acknowledged liability for appellant's claim - where respondent's claim identified the contribution of his employment to the injury in respect of which he claims damages - whether the appellant's injury was an injury as defined under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) and whether the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) applied to the respondent's claim Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld), s 5(b) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 6(2)(b) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32 Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2006] QCA 48; CA No 7137 of 2005; 3 March 2006, cited
COUNSEL:	D O J North SC, with D C Rangiah, for the appellant D V C McMeekin SC, with B J Hartigan, for the first respondent W Sofronoff QC, with R I M Lilley, for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the appellant Herbert Geer & Rundle for the first and second respondents